One strike web of trust, where a verified personal photo is your ID?

[ribuck]

Hazek, how about this:

A. The private club has a membership fee, and a code of conduct. Send X bitcoins to the club's address to join.

B. Whenever you want to deal with other members under the terms of this code of conduct, use your Bitcoin client to sign a contract (or other document) with the key that was used to pay your membership fee.

C. If there's a dispute, the club adjudicates it. That's what the membership fee is used for. The adjudication process takes account of the club's "code of conduct", and issues a ruling which may include a requirement to make good a failing in a certain way.

D. If a ruling is not carried out, the member is in breach of the code of conduct and can be expelled from the club.

E. An expelled member can apply again by paying a new membership fee. There's no way around this, but they start again from zero reputation, and it gets expensive if they do this too often.

F. Perhaps the members can even choose their own membership fee, since it acts a bit like a security bond. If someone wants to show that they can be trusted, they pay a large membership fee so that others can see that they have a lot to lose if they break the code of conduct.

[1714786905]

1714786905

[1714786905]

1714786905

[1714786905]

1714786905

[1714786905]

1714786905

[1714786905]

1714786905

[1714786905]

1714786905

[Tuxavant]

Now I

Hazek, how about this:

Now I'm starting to show some interest. I like this.

[mollison]

a blueprint for a free peaceful society with some private mandatory and consistent rules without rulers (i.e. anarchy).

In an anarchy, the group of people that can weild the most force will end up ruling, i.e. will form a government. So you could say that we already live in an anarchy. Just one that has progressed past the violent part.

[tvbcof]

It depends a bit on what role I was planning to play in an economy.

I would be (and am) quite sensitive indeed about my identity, and especially facial recognition generally.  Although I am a non-violent person, I only half-jokingly told my co-workers that one of the few things which would induce me to beat someone up would be if they pinned my name to one of the FaceBook 'who is this' queries which I had heard were floating around.  This is not to say that I would flat out not participate, but I would be naturally quite leery.

If I were in a position where I was responsible for dealing with value on behalf of a group of others, now we have a very different scenario.  Not only do I think it would be appropriate to put my face up, but various other details besides in most situations.  Part of this is simply practical...I wouldn't trust a business who's principles wish to remain anonymous unless they had a very obvious and compelling reason to do so.  Even then, it would be not so much a 'trust' thing but more of a gamble thing.

---

As an alternate way to deal with some of the issues which you seem to be thinking about...

I've always thought that there was some role for 'bonds' in securing confidence.  Maybe I keep a bond floating which covers my day-to-day transactions.  If I want to do an unusually large transaction, I might increase my bond on a temporary basis.  This would allow me complete anonymity (excepting perhaps from my bond insurer) no matter what role I played and a counter-party should not care less who I was since they have protection.